Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Communicating Risk of Electromagnetic Fields/Radiofrequency Radiation (EMF/RFR)

  • Chapter
Radiofrequency Radiation Standards

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((NSSA,volume 274))

  • 225 Accesses

Abstract

In general, the public has become very risk conscious, believing that it is exposed to more risks today than in the past and that it will encounter more in the future.1 Media accounts and inflammatory headlines have angered and frightened the public. Since it is not newsworthy to report that the sky is not falling, viewpoints suggesting that the readership may be in danger are highlighted.

These views and opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. P. Slovic, Perception of risk. Science., 236:280–285 (1987).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. I. Nair, M.G. Morgan, H.K. Florig, Biological effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields. Background paper prepared for the Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. OTA-BP-E-53. (May 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  3. A.C. Brown, Commissioner-Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Panel Discussion: How will government action on EMF affect business. The Business Of EMF. Washington International Energy Group. Washington D.C. (June 27, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Toward Utility Rate Normalization. Comments of Toward Utility Normalization: Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. (April 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Executive Office of The President, Office of Management and Budget, “Current regulatory issues in risk assessment and risk management,” Regulatory Program of the United States Government (April 1, 1990-March 31, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  6. G.M. Morgan, Exposé treatment confounds understanding of a serious public health issue. Scientific American. April: 118-123 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board: Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee. Reducing risk: Setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection. SAB-EC-90-021, (September 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  8. J.V. Rodricks, S.L. Brown, R. Putzrath and D. Turnbull, An industry perspective: Invited presentation, Use of risk information in regulation of carcinogens. Presented at the December 16, 1987 Workshop on Determination of No Significant Risk Under Proposition 65, 19-41.

    Google Scholar 

  9. U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Chemical carcinogens: A review of the science and its associated principles. 50 FR 10378 (March 14, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. 51 FR 34001 (September 24, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  11. B.N. Ames and L.S. Gold, Too many rodent carcinogens: Mitogenesis increases mutagenesis. Science., 249:97–971 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. Pool, Struggling to do science for society. News and Comment. Science. 248:672–673, 1990.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. V.T. Covello, Communicating right-to-know information on chemical risks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23:1444–1449 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. B.D., Goldstein, Risk assessment and the interface between science and law. Columbia J. Environ Law., 14:343–355 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  15. G.L. Carlo, N.L. Lee, K.G. Sund and S.D. Pettygrove, The interplay of science, values, and experiences among scientists asked to evaluate the hazards of dioxin, radon, and environmental tobacco smoke. Risk Analysis, 12:37–43 (1992).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. A. Whittemore, Facts and values in risk analysis for environmental toxicants, Risk Analysis, 3, 23–33 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. D. Robins and R. Johnson, The role of cognitive and occupational differentiation in scientific controversies. Social Studies of Science, 6:349–368 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. National Academy of Sciences. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government-Managing the Process, Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  19. F.H. Habicht II., “National Environmental Priorities: The EPA Risk-Based Paradigm and Its Alternative.” Conference held in Annapolis MD 16–17 Nov, 1992 (Organized by A. Finkel, Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future. Reported in RISK Newsletter, 13,1 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  20. N. Ashford, “National Environmental Priorities: The EPA Risk-Based Paradigm and Its Alternative.” Conference held in Annapolis MD 16–17 Nov, 1992 (Organized by A. Finkel, Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future. Reported in RISK Newsletter, 13,1 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  21. B.J. Klauenberg and E.K. Vermulen, Role for risk communication in closing military waste sites, Risk Analysis, 14:351–356 (1994).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. G.T. Gardner and L.C. Gould, Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology, Risk Analysis 9:225–242 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. B.J. Klauenberg, Does public policy require scientific consensus? Health Physics Newletter, 19:25–29 Oct (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  24. F.H. Habicht II, EPA Assessment Program Featured Speaker, Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  25. W.D. Ruckelshaus, Science, risk, and public policy. Vital Speeches of the Day, 49, 20:612–615, (August 1, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy Analysis. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. Vol 1. Overview Report. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington D.C. (February, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  27. P.M. Sandman, Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA Journal. pp. 21-22, Nov 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  28. V.E. Covello, P.M. Sandman and P. Solvic, eds., “Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers,” Chemical Manufactures Association, Washington DC (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  29. H. Otway, Experts, risk communciation, and democracy, Risk Analysis 7:125–129 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. M.G. Morgan, B. Fischoff, A. Bostrom, L. Lave and C.J. Atman, Communicating risk to the public: first, learn what people know and believe, Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:2048–2056 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. I.E. Kornfield, W. Subra and W. Collette, How to Win in Public Hearings, Center for Environmental Justice. Citizen’s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc., (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  32. National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  33. C. Chess, A. Saville, M. Tamuz and M. Greenberg, The organizational links between communication and risk management: The case of sybron chemicals inc. Risk Analysis, 12:431–438 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. D.J. Fiorino, Technical and democratic values in risk analysis, Risk Analysis 9:293–299 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. S.G. Hadden, Institutional barriers to risk communication, Risk Analysis 9:301–308 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. B. Hance, C. Chess, and P. Sandman, Improving Dialog with Communities: A Short Guide For Government Risk Communication. Department of Environmental Protection Trenton New Jersey (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Seven Rules for Risk Communication, in: “Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers” V.E. Covello, P.M. Sandman, and P. Solvic, eds., Chemical Manufactures Association, Washington DC (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  38. R.E. Kasperson, Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6:275–281 (1986).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. L. Gordon, Risk communication and environmental health priorities. J. Environ Health, 52:134 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  40. R.J. Zeckhauser and W.K. Viscusi, Risk within reason. Science, 248:559–564 (1990).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiofrequency Radiation Division, Occupational and Environmental Health Directorate, U.S. Air Force Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 78235-5324, USA

    B. Jon Klauenberg

Authors
  1. B. Jon Klauenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Radiofrequency Radiation Division, Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, USA

    B. Jon Klauenberg  & David N. Erwin  & 

  2. Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy

    Martino Grandolfo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Klauenberg, B.J. (1995). Communicating Risk of Electromagnetic Fields/Radiofrequency Radiation (EMF/RFR). In: Klauenberg, B.J., Grandolfo, M., Erwin, D.N. (eds) Radiofrequency Radiation Standards. NATO ASI Series, vol 274. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0945-9_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0945-9_37

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-0947-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-0945-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation